Kenneth Sachs v. Maryna Vorobyova Sachs; Raymond Branton

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH SACHS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARYNA VOROBYOVA SACHS;
RAYMOND BRANTON,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16595
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00754-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Kenneth Sachs appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state child custody
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16595
subject matter jurisdiction. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741 F.3d
1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sachs’s action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because Sachs failed to allege a federal question or meet the
requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a); Rivet v.
Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under
§ 1331, a federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly
pleaded complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be
futile).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --